Follow by Email

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Diversity versus perversity

Any regular listener to talk show host Michael Savage will recognize the words, "Diversity is perversity." I don't claim to have created the phrase, but it is becoming more and more true. President Obama's recent pronouncement regarding gay marriage is a perfect example. While I realize that a slippery slope argument is considered a logical fallacy, the trend in society is quite obvious. Society is changing incrementally, and the change is not one toward Judeo-Christian values.

Racial and ethnic diversity is a fact of life, and as such is value-neutral. It strikes me as odd when people use trite language such as, "Celebrate diversity!" Diversity is neither to be celebrated nor denigrated. It simply is. In the modern era, one must be able to navigate potential landmines associated with diversity while at the same time using it to one's advantage. For example, when speaking to someone with a Spanish accent I often slip into Spanish myself. This is pleasing to the listener and reinforces the idea that we have something in common. I do the same thing when speaking with Muslims or people from northern India. I throw in common phrases I have learned and enjoy the smiles. It is a way to make a positive impression and also an enjoyable experience.

Nothing expresses the promise of American freedom like the swearing in of new citizens...

However, the term diversity has become so all-inclusive that it now includes things that, only a few decades ago, would have been abhorrent. The acceptance of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle choice is one of those things, as are out-of-wedlock birth, promiscuity, welfare as a way of life, and blatant attacks on (Bible-based) religion. It is one thing to suggest that certain behaviors or beliefs should be tolerated. The word tolerate means to put up with, so this simply means that while you may not like it, you recognize that everyone has the freedom to act as they wish so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

However, under the guise of tolerance we are being asked to accept and legally recognize homosexuality as being equal to the relationship between man and wife. Logic itself dictates that the two things are different. The relationship that exists in a marriage is intrinsically valuable, not just to those directly involved but to society as a whole. Without heterosexual relations between men and women, the species would cease to exist. Marriage as an institution predates the government of the United States. Our government does not grant marriages but simply recognizes the institution as binding and legal. Homosexuality is not necessary nor does it accomplish any good to society as a whole. The government has no interest in recognizing such relationships because they do not create offspring. Their stability has nothing to do with the stability of society, whereas marriage (in the eons-old sense) is a stabilizing factor. The decline of lifelong marriages has contributed to the decline of society in a very real sense. The government ought to do all it can to encourage marriage between men and women and discourage reproduction outside of that framework.

The Judeo-Christian scriptures are replete with admonitions against homosexuality. They exist for good reason and should not be ignored. From both a logical and religious perspective, the push to diversify the definition of marriage is a bad idea. It will inevitably devalue the marriage covenant, a covenant which has already been hit hard enough by the increasingly self-centered culture we have created in the past half-century. Let us not deliver the final death blow.

Diversity has contributed much to our culture. I cannot imagine life without Mexican or Chinese food. I was raised in the midst of a largely Hispanic culture. There is much to be learned and gained from other cultures. However, lowering our moral standards is never a good idea, even in the name of diversity. We are already suffering the consequences enough as it is.

Just as a frame of reference, the following graph should be useful.

Government has enabled this trend by replacing fathers as the default breadwinner. The responsibility to care for one's offspring financially was a huge motivator for childbearing couples to marry. We have eliminated this positive pressure. Moreover, women need not rely on men's incomes if the government will supply their wants and needs. This allows many to simply leave a relationship because it is convenient. Boredom has become an acceptable reason for divorce.

All of this we are asked to accept in the cherished name of diversity. Diverse types of families, sexual relationships, and moral codes are to be not only tolerated but celebrated. As a Mormon, Romney is already the target of animus due to his church's opposition to gay marriage and its efforts against it, particularly in California. As Christians, are they not obliged to make that stand? I, for one, am glad that at least somebody is doing so.

No comments:

Post a Comment

What do you think? Please share your opinion...